<<Print>>

Dr Kwadwo Afari-Gyan, witness for the second respondent in the 2012 Election Petition, on Monday stated the serial numbers on the pink sheets have no relevance to the compilation and declaration of results. He said the Election Commission (EC) identifies polling stations by unique codes and the name. Dr Afari-Gyan, the Electoral Commissioner made the revelation when he continued with his evidence-in-chief at the Supreme Court. He said the serial numbers on the pink sheet are not generated by the EC but the firm which printed the documents. He said the ballot papers unlike the pink sheets are required by law for serial numbers to be printed on them adding that no reference is made of the serial numbers on pink sheets. Dr Afari-Gyan said the serial numbers are important only to the extent that it helps to keep count of the pink sheets produced saying that they are distributed randomly. He said the since the petition started he never heard anybody identify polling station by serial numbers. He said if two pink sheets have the same serial number for different polling stations that would have no effect on the validity of the votes cast. Dr Afari-Gyan also stated that since each of the polling stations would have a different code and name, there would be two different presiding officers, two different sets of candidate agents as well as two different results entirely. He explained that when results are taken from polling stations to the collation centre they are dealt with on the basis of the polling station codes and not serial numbers. Earlier, the Supreme Court by majority decision upheld an objection raised by Mr Philip Addison, Lead counsel for the petitioner not to allow the EC to tender a document purported to contain a Biometric Verification Data (BVD). Mr Addison in objecting to the tendering of the document argued that there was nothing on the face of the document which shows it is original information that comes directly from the BVD. He said the evidence being presented by the second respondent was taking the petitioners by surprise. He argued that per the directions of the court the petitioners attached all their affidavits and served them on the second respondents. Mr Addison said the respondent had the opportunity to explain their move and they also did not say it anywhere that they had relied on the BVD, let alone recalling the BVD to the EC Headquarters. He said the second respondent is conducting an entirely new case which they had not attached to their case or their affidavits. He argued that the information on BVD is based on software which can be changed citing the manual from the EC which says the Commission has software which can change the information. He therefore prayed the court to object to the tendering of the document. Mr James Quarshie Idun, Counsel for the EC argued that there was distinction between admissibility and the weight to be attached to a document to be tendered. Case adjourned to tomorrow June 4, 2013.